Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mr. Irrelevant

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mr. Irrelevant

  1. 3 hours ago, Neil Beaufort Zod said:

    Are we factoring in the team's reaction to the decision? Respecting a coach going for the jugular, or showing no confidence in their defense? They're playing for later in the year, and next year, the the right to finish their contract. Doesn't all that play into their decision to give the team an emotional boost (or play not to lose both the game and their job)? 

    I've never played organized football, but it's hardly a novel observation that it's an incredibly taxing, demanding sport.

    Leaving aside the testosterone, or the confidence, or the "kill or be killed" attitude that defines NFL players in general ... if you gave 100 players the choice between going for 2 to win the game, or kicking an XP and facing up to 45 more (actual, real-life) minutes of slamming their bodies into their opponents and the turf, I bet 99 of them would tell you to keep the offense on the field.

  2. Through week 6 ...

    Mr. Irrelevant	1137.75	189.6
    Stinkin Ref	1106.75	184.5
    Shadowfax	1070.50	178.4
    Crippler	1053.25	175.5
    BassNBrew	1032.75	172.1
    bro1ncos	1025.00	170.8
    Duckboy		1004.75	167.5
    BTSW		997.25	166.2
     Holloway	972.50	162.1
    OZ		969.50	161.6
    Drunken Slob	894.75	149.1
    Old Milwaukee	857.50	142.9

    [cough] Josh Allen (QB1) and Tampa Bay (DST1) looking like the two SOD so far ... [cough]

  3. Week 5: BnB goes B2B with immunity @ 168.65 ... and the cruel mistress that is Survivor takes out @Duckboy in his very first week with less than a top-5 score.

    Week 6: @Crippler punches his first golden ticket with 159.75 ... @bro1ncos gets swept off the deck with a league-low 79.95.

    No remaining team has any real bye-week problems in week 7 although @Go DC Yourself and @Maggot Brain look to both be without a QB.

  4. 10 minutes ago, spodog said:


    This Offense is productive enough to keep CEH in the low end RB1 range and Bell in the RB2 range most weeks

    I'm not saying it's impossible, but when is the last time a team with a 60/40 pass/run ratio supported two top-24 fantasy RBs?

    I wouldn't put it past Reid and Bienemy to run Bell out of the slot on half the snaps - but absent that I don't see a path to that sort of joint value.

  5. Also you hear a lot about guys being "better for real life than fantasy" but Wentz is the rare example of someone who could be the opposite.

    The Eagles are 5th in plays run this year, 1st last year, 8th the year before that. They may not always be effective, but Pederson has never let the grass grow under their feet. And with their weaknesses in the secondary it's not like a lot of teams will be trying to run the ball and grind clock against them, either.

    If he can get to the point where he's even the 20th-best QB statistically, that could still make him close to a top-12 fantasy QB on volume alone.

  6. And BTW, I'm not taking a stance on whether Dallas should or shouldn't give him that kind of money, merely that they'll have to if they want to keep him.

    In fact, Wentz offers something of a cautionary tale. It's pretty clear his injury sapped his ability to create plays outside the pocket and throw deep while on the run ... and IMO if that's not the biggest reason he's disappointed the past couple of years it's got to be right up there.

    Dak had a very similar skillset in that regard and so I'd certainly be concerned about a similar post-injury trajectory.

    • Thanks 1
  7. 11 minutes ago, socrates said:

    Are there any examples of a QB getting paid coming off a serious injury and based on projected numbers the player might have produced if not for injury?

    You'd have to go way back in the mists of time to about 18 months ago, when the Eagles re-signed Wentz. He got pretty close to top-of-market money (4 / $128), or at least what had been considered such pre-Mahomes. 

    You can argue his ACL / MCL tear happened a year earlier on his personal career timeline, and so it's not an exact parallel ... but does anyone think Lurie and Roseman would have been successful at lowballing him if it had been the latter?

    I think Dak may well be OK accepting a slight discount to stay with the Cowboys ... but I also think his and Jerry's definitions of the term may wind up $10's of millions apart.

    • Like 1
  8. 3 minutes ago, Gally said:

    Dak takes a discount because he had a catastrophic injury.  He doesn't know if he will be back to 100%.  If I am Jones I offer him what I was offering him before with maybe a bit less of guaranteed money (that Dak didn't want) and If I am Dak I sign it to ensure my payday without having to prove I am 100% from my injury.  It's a win-win for both based on the assumption Dak gets back to 90% or more of his pre-injury form (which is no guarantee). 

    I can see this, but I can also see Jerry saying to himself, "wait, I was willing to offer a healthy Dak $x three months ago, and now you want me to offer the same $x to a Dak who's fresh off a catastrophic leg injury?" And his pride not letting him do it.

  9. 16 minutes ago, Capella said:

    No chance they would do 6 games. Literally the only reason they are doing this is for the money. 

    I read (sorry I can't remember where or I'd link) a similar bubble idea that I loved.

    Four 'regional' bubbles for the East, North, South and West. Each team plays a 10-game in-region schedule consisting of their divisional opponents 2x each and the other four teams in the bubble 1x each. Two teams qualify for the playoffs from each bubble (I'd have the #1 automatically qualify, #3 play #4 with the winner taking on #2 for the second playoff spot, but that's personal preference). Those 8 teams go to a playoff bubble in January and you hold the typical playoff schedule from there.

    If you wanted to make some additional money (and heaven knows that's the NFL), you could start half the divisions off in a different regional bubble and have everyone open the schedule with a separate 4-game inter-conference slate for a 14-game total.

    You could have constructed something approximating a normal schedule even in a bubble environment. Whether you'd have ever gotten the NFLPA to agree to anything approximating a normal duration season in a bubble is the bigger question IMO.

  10. 1 minute ago, moleculo said:

    pretty much.  My understanding is the NFL will do everything they can to shuffle schedules to preserve a 17 week schedule.  They will go to 18 or even 19 weeks if absolutely necessary, and only for games with playoff implications.  forfeits and cancellations are not on the table.

    But it's not like Moses came down with that schedule inscribed on stone tablets. They drew it up in the first place! They had every opportunity to make it as malleable as possible to maximize the amount of shuffling they could do within a 17-week time frame ... and for whatever reason, they chose not to. As a result they're already at a point where moving one game out of its current spot requires shuffling 8 other games around down the line. It's safe to say the logistics aren't gonna get easier from here.

    So they can go on all they want about the sanctity of the 17-week calendar, but this is the bed they made. They're gonna find out pretty soon it isn't much fun to lie in.

    • Thanks 1
  11. 13 minutes ago, Mr. Know-It-All said:

    With 2:38 left and a 2 point lead and possession in their own end; the Bucs went run (-2 yards), pass (inc), pass (inc), punt.  Bears did not have to use a time out.  They then proceeded down the field for the winning field goal.

    Why did the Bucs not pound the ball to burn clock (or Chi timeouts).  Very stupid play calling.

    If you run twice more you're never gonna get a first down against that front seven and you won't burn more than 10 seconds off the clock. Which means you'll be handing the Bears the ball back near midfield, needing to go maybe 25 yards for a game-winning FG, and they'll still have a timeout at the 2:00 warning. Your GW odds are likely worse in that scenario than they are if you give Tom Brady two shots to find an open man and get you a first down.

    I mean, that's the data-driven answer. The real answer is that if Bruce Arians had called three straight runs in that situation I'd have fallen out of my chair in shock.

    • Like 2
  12. Add me to the chorus who thinks Godwin is underpriced at 10. I can't think of too many dynasty scenarios where as an Adams or Nuk owner I wouldn't take Godwin straight up. I want to say the same about Golladay but TBH I had no idea he was a couple weeks from turning 27, so in that light what I'd be willing to offer is probably an overpay.

    Others I'd be buying at these prices: Chark, Diontae / Claypool, Hardman, Edwards, Duvernay, Hurd, Boykin, Auden Tate.

    I'd be selling: Amari, A-Rob, Boyd, Parker, Landry, Fuller, Lazard, Kirk, M. Williams, Cooks (who's definitely not a Ram any more, BTW). TBH there are very few names in that WR38-60 range I wouldn't be looking for an excuse to move off my rosters.

  13. On 10/6/2020 at 6:21 PM, DJackson10 said:

    49ers released WR Sanu today who played for NE last year. Its more they had guys at the position coming back. Don't think it'd Hurt to bring him in for a few weeks maybe. Better then running all no name guys out there. 

    No thanks. The Pats are the only other team that needs WR difference-makers as badly as we do. And if the Sith Lord was still willing to eat the sunk cost of the 2nd-rounder and cut Sanu loose, that tells me all I need to know about his prospects.

    ETA: If we're looking for a difference-maker, I'd give Cinci a buzz and see if we can shake Auden Tate loose for a 6th or 7th. It looks like he's gotten buried on the depth chart with Higgins' arrival but IMO the kid could have a bright future somewhere.

    • Like 2
  14. 1 minute ago, SoBeDad said:

    The NFL is trying not to panic. But unless player and staff behavior are better monitored and restricted, this is just the beginning. 

    “Don’t panic. But if you’re going to panic ... panic first.”

    The NFL could very well have to choose between losing (or even just postponing) a week now and the entire rest of the season in a couple of weeks. The former seems the obvious choice, which is why I’m confident they’ll choose the latter.

    • Like 3
    • Laughing 1
  • Create New...